Back
Unchallenged Cannot Be Treated : Allahabad HC Dismisses KDA Appeal
The has ruled that a which has not been cancelled, corrected, or set aside by a competent authority cannot be treated as merely because the opposite party alleges forgery. A single-judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X dismissed an appeal by the against a trial court decree of in favor of Nathu Lal Gupta (since deceased) over a two-room construction on part of Arazi No. 1807 in Kanpur.
The Dispute Over Arazi No. 1807
The plaintiff, Nathu Lal Gupta, had instituted a suit in seeking a restraining KDA and other defendants from interfering with his possession over House No. 127/W/1807-A, situated on part of Arazi No. 1807 in Village Juhi Kala, Kanpur. He claimed that he obtained the land under a lease deed dated , executed by the erstwhile Zamindar, Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar, for establishing a brick kiln. Though the business could not start due to alkaline soil, he allegedly raised huts, built a boundary wall, and started a building materials business. He claimed possession since , and relied on revenue entries in his favor in the record of rights.
KDA contested the suit, denying the lease deed as and fabricated. It claimed that Arazi No. 1807 had been acquired pursuant to Award No. 1 dated , and possession was taken on . The authority further alleged that the plaintiff had fraudulently got his name recorded in the revenue records.
Trial Court Findings
The Trial Court framed issues including whether the plaintiff was owner and in possession, whether the land was acquired, and whether the revenue entries were . It held that KDA failed to prove acquisition of the specific portion in dispute, noting that paragraph 17 of the award referred only to two bighas of Arazi No. 1807 and the possession certificate did not mention that arazi. The court found that the revenue entries in in the plaintiff's favor had not been proved . Though the lease deed was found to have no legal value, the Trial Court held that the entries could not be ignored and decreed the suit in respect of the two-room construction over which possession was established.
Arguments in Appeal
KDA argued that once the lease deed was found insufficient to confer title, subsequent revenue entries could not supply the foundation for the plaintiff's claim. It contended that the suit for injunction without a was not maintainable, and that the acquisition documents clearly showed the land was acquired and compensation paid to Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar. The plaintiff's counsel countered that the acquisition did not cover the entire Arazi No. 1807, and that the award did not identify the specific portion. They relied on the existing and the fact that KDA's own notice directed the plaintiff to remove the construction, amounting to an admission of possession.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Anil Kumar-X examined the principles from the judgment in , which held that a is necessary only when the defendant's denial raises a cloud over the plaintiff's title. Here, the plaintiff had an existing in , which had never been cancelled or set aside by any competent authority. The court observed that the source of an entry and its continued existence are distinct matters; the entry could not be treated as non-existent merely because the defendant alleged forgery.
The court further noted that KDA's own entry was found by the Trial Court to relate to a different Mohal (Ram Charan) and not the disputed land at Mohal Dilip Singh. Thus, the defendant failed to displace the plaintiff's entry.
On the issue of possession, the court relied on KDA's notice to the plaintiff requiring removal of the two-room construction, the Commissioner's report confirming the construction, and the admission of KDA's witness (D.W.-1) that the plaintiff was in possession, albeit allegedly illegal. The court held that the trial court's finding of possession over the limited portion was well-supported by evidence and statutory provisions under the .
Key Observations
"A
may not, by itself, create title, but an existing and
cannot be treated as
or wiped out from consideration merely on the basis of an allegation made by the opposite party. Its
has to be assessed in the context of the entire evidence on record."
"In a suit for
, where the plaintiff establishes his possession and the defendant fails to establish a
to interfere with such possession, the relief cannot be denied merely because the plaintiff has not obtained a
, particularly when the existing
in his favour continues to hold the field."
"The source or basis on which an entry came to be made and the continued existence of the entry are two distinct matters."
The Decision
The dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decree. The court found no ground to interfere with the finding that the plaintiff's possession over the two-room construction was established, and that KDA failed to prove that this portion was acquired or that it had a to interfere. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This ruling reinforces the of unchallenged revenue entries and clarifies that in a suit for injunction, possession coupled with an existing can be sufficient to protect a party's right, without requiring a separate , unless a genuine cloud is raised.
